|
Register | Sign In |
|
QuickSearch
EvC Forum active members: 65 (9162 total) |
| |
popoi | |
Total: 915,815 Year: 3,072/9,624 Month: 917/1,588 Week: 100/223 Day: 11/17 Hour: 0/0 |
Thread ▼ Details |
Member (Idle past 4716 days) Posts: 1277 From: A vast, undifferentiated plane. Joined: |
|
Thread Info
|
|
|
Author | Topic: People Don't Know What Creation Science Is | |||||||||||||||||||||||||||
New Cat's Eye Inactive Member |
The creation model predicts--by its very nature of what creation is--that life appeared suddenly and fully formed and how does that not violate the second law of thermodynamics!?
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||||||
New Cat's Eye Inactive Member |
Specifically, the second law of thermodynamics is the mechanism that makes macroevolution impossible. It makes the emergence of fully formed species impossible, why don't you see that?
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||||||
Modulous Member Posts: 7801 From: Manchester, UK Joined: |
There are no real transitional fossils in the fossil record. In fact, if evolution were true, it would seem that all forms ought to be transitional forms. But they are not. The fact is that the same gaps that exist in the living world, also exist in the fossil record. This is why scientists have had to tweak their theory..from Darwinism, to neo Darwinisn to post neo Darwinism. What you have had to do at this point is rely on hopeful monsters... the fossil record is in complete harmony with what creationists expect and we have not had to alter our model to fit the evidence. Once again, since you are avoiding answering my question* I can only take this as a concession: Creation Science cannot objectively discriminate between types and cannot thus make any actual predictions about what we should see with regards to 'types'. Now we have established that Creation Science cannot make this prediction as you claimed it could, shall we move on to another prediction? Great. Let's move on to
The creation model, on-the-other-hand, predicts that there should be a conservational and disintegrative principle operating in nature. Can you tell me how the creation model predicted that there should be both a conservational and disintegrative principle operating in nature? I am assuming that you also agree that the creation model agrees things can get better? The Creator, and since you've been sketchy its difficult to know, could surely take something and fix it, or could create something fantastic where there was something not fantastic before? That's kind of the whole premise isn't it? So, creation science predicts that things can get better, stay the same, or get worse. Not the most fantastic of predictions I've ever heard - but let's run with it. What is it about the creation model that specifically predicts there should be a 'disintegrative principle' operating in the world?† * If you want to come back to it the question is: So we find a transitional sequence in the fossil record. How are we to know if it is within a created type or not? Can you tell us how the creation model makes this discrimination so that we can tell if the prediction has in fact borne out? † This bolded section is the bit you have to answer in your reply, if you don't, I can only assume you are conceding that there is no answer and that this is once again not a valid prediction of the creation model.
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||||||
Kelly Member (Idle past 5495 days) Posts: 217 Joined: |
I believe that the models of evolution and creation come with 'Predictions" inherent in the theory itself and the evidence is about what already took place in the past. Evolution looks for signs of life slowly and gradually developing over time, transmutating from one type or species into a newer (and bigger/better) form while creation posits that all things were created at one point in time and there is no change except that between created types or species.
I am not sure if creationists are still looking for anything else needed to confirm their model. They are satisfied thus far.
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||||||
Kelly Member (Idle past 5495 days) Posts: 217 Joined: |
You ask: "What is it about the creation model that specifically predicts there should be a 'disintegrative principle' operating in the world?"
The answer is because the creation model says that life was created initially and that it was "not" by a naturalistic process that is still continuing today. The creation model does not expect "upward change" or improvement. The expectation of disintegration is inherent in the model and experienced in real life.
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||||||
Dman Member (Idle past 5017 days) Posts: 38 Joined: |
quote: See but a prediction in science is information that is not yet found, and predicted from the implications of its theory, and then found to be true. All I have seen of your CS predictions are things that are already present, and fitted to the CS "model". Also, I know you are being bombarded here, but could you please take a stab at answering how CS "categorizes" Ambulocetus and how CS explains the reptilian features of Archaeopteryx. This might help clear some things up. Edited by Dman, : No reason given. Edited by Dman, : No reason given.
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||||||
Kelly Member (Idle past 5495 days) Posts: 217 Joined: |
Scientifically, neither model can actually determine that. All we can do is study the evidence left behind. Creationists believe that the evidence reveals that life cannot be explianed in terms of continuing natural processes but that some things must be attributed to completed processes that are no longer continuing. In this respect, both models simply need to address life as it continues under their respective models. In this regard, the laws of thermodynamics are only a problem for the evolutionists.
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||||||
Coyote Member (Idle past 2106 days) Posts: 6117 Joined: |
The creation model does not expect "upward change" or improvement. The expectation of disintegration is inherent in the model and experienced in real life.
This then is easily disproved. All you need to disprove this prediction is one favorable mutation. Here is one (out of many): the ability to tan. Humans originated in Africa with dark skin to reduce the impact of ultraviolet light on the sublayers of skin. When humans moved north to the Mediterranean the light levels were reduced in the winter but still pretty intense in the summer. Mutations that lightened the skin color and allowed tanning (to block more UV radiation during the summers while permitting UV to penetrate the skin during winters) allowed more successful adaptation to that environment. The mutation(s) that changed the skin color from very dark to a lighter color and permitted tanning are a favorable mutation (an improvement) for that environment. The prediction of creation "science" is thus falsified. There are many more such examples found throughout nature. I expect you to deny this, of course, as creation "science" isn't about the evidence but about supporting the religious beliefs of its practitioners. That's why it is religious apologetics, and the exact opposite of science. Religious belief does not constitute scientific evidence, nor does it convey scientific knowledge.
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||||||
Kelly Member (Idle past 5495 days) Posts: 217 Joined: |
I am refering to the predictions already made and confirmed. I don't really know if Creationists are working on new predictions or if they even need to. I am not a scientist myself. I suppose you could study that for yourself if you really want to know. I haven't got the interest.
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||||||
Coragyps Member (Idle past 734 days) Posts: 5553 From: Snyder, Texas, USA Joined: |
while creation posits that all things were created at one point in time and there is no change except that between created types or species. I am not sure if creationists are still looking for anything else needed to confirm their model. They are satisfied thus far. They are satisfied in their deliberate self-imposed ignorance and blindness. Sure, if you ignore everything geology and palaeontology have learned in the last couple of centuries, you can say "all things were created at one point in time." I would rather look at some accumulated knowledge, myself. "Creation science" needs to just take a peek at the real world, too - like science does. "The wretched world lies now under the tyranny of foolishness; things are believed by Christians of such absurdity as no one ever could aforetime induce the heathen to believe." - Agobard of Lyons, ca. 830 AD
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||||||
Coragyps Member (Idle past 734 days) Posts: 5553 From: Snyder, Texas, USA Joined: |
I don't really know if Creationists are working on new predictions or if they even need to. I think I can guess, though. They've never made a (scientific) prediction to date, so why should they start now? If they just use the fear of Hell to keep the money coming in, what's the point of foolin' with that messy old science stuff? "The wretched world lies now under the tyranny of foolishness; things are believed by Christians of such absurdity as no one ever could aforetime induce the heathen to believe." - Agobard of Lyons, ca. 830 AD
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||||||
Modulous Member Posts: 7801 From: Manchester, UK Joined: |
The answer is because the creation model says that life was created initially and that it was "not" by a naturalistic process that is still continuing today OK so life was created initially not by a naturalistic process.
The expectation of disintegration is inherent in the model and experienced in real life But why is it inherent in the model? I don't understand. I see no reason that it has to be the case at all. Just because life was created why should it follow that there is a disintegrative principle?
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||||||
Rahvin Member Posts: 4032 Joined: Member Rating: 9.2 |
Kelly, I'm afraid that thus far you haven't shown that Creation Science has any validity. You've made unsupported assertions and claimed that they are "obvious," when clearly (by simple disagreement) that is not the case.
Your primary points (such as your usage of thermodynamics) betray the fact that you don't actually have a competent grasp of the subject matter. You have no concept of what the Theory of Evolution actually states, you don't understand the foundational evidence behind it, and you don't respond when people correct you, instead continuing to re-use previously refuted points without challenging the refutations. Quite seriously, you don't know enough about science to comprehend your incompetence. I'm not saying this as an insult - I'm honestly trying to convey that you simply don't know enough to realize how much you don't know, or how much you think you know is inaccurate at best or outright fabrication from a Creationist source at worst. You don't even have a grasp of basic logic, and so your arguments are riddled with fallacies ranging from ever-present strawmen to the false dichotomy that if you disprove evolution somehow Creationism somehow wins by default. Most of your arguments seem to be paraphrased or even outright copied directly from a single Creationist book. You've mentioned not a single published paper in a scientific journal supporting so-called Creation Science, nor have you provided an example of a Creation Scientist. You've been unable or unwilling to tell us of a single discovery made by Creation Science, and you haven't even been able to coherently describe what Creation Science is despite being asked to do so for the entirety of this thread. Honestly Kelly, your lack of real response to other people, particularly your absolute refusal to respond when one or more of your points is refuted and your pattern of re-using refuted arguments, leads me to believe that you are either incapable or unwilling to participate in an actual debate in good faith. I'm disengaging in debate with you until such time as you prove that conclusion to be inaccurate. You can do so by either conceding points that have been refuted, or actually challenging the refutations with some sort of evidence to back you up beyond the assumed authority of your favorite book.
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||||||
Coyote Member (Idle past 2106 days) Posts: 6117 Joined: |
But why is it inherent in the model? I don't understand. I see no reason that it has to be the case at all. Just because life was created why should it follow that there is a disintegrative principle?
This is due to sin and the fall some 6,000 years ago. By the way, this is also clear evidence that creation "science" is attempting to use the mantle of science to promote religious belief. And this "disintegrative principle" has long since been falsified by science. Religious belief does not constitute scientific evidence, nor does it convey scientific knowledge.
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||||||
Kelly Member (Idle past 5495 days) Posts: 217 Joined: |
Mutations are only changes in already existing genes. All you get when radiation mutates a gene is just a varied form of what already existed.This process cannot change anything into something fundamentally different. I am not even sure that I would classify the ability to tan as a mutation. Rather, it seems quite good a design. It actually protects the skin. But this occurs within the framework of the type--and does not lend to evolution in the macrosense.
|
|
|
Do Nothing Button
Copyright 2001-2023 by EvC Forum, All Rights Reserved
Version 4.2
Innovative software from Qwixotic © 2024